MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SoTL in the LIS Classroom: Helping Future Academic Librarians Become More Engaged Teachers

2017· article· en· W2782768125 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications in Information Literacy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicWeb and Library Services
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarship of Teaching and LearningLibrary instructionCurriculumSociologyScholarshipPedagogyHigher educationInformation literacyMathematics educationPsychologyLibrary scienceComputer scienceTeaching methodPolitical scienceTeaching and learning center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we share background and key considerations of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL), and propose introducing library and information science (LIS) students to SoTL as a way to acquaint them with the higher education teaching profession. Throughout the article, we employ reflection as the primary consideration and support structure that frames the benefits of SoTL for instructional growth. Four critical stages of SoTL training, first suggested by Gale and Golde (2004), are recommended for LIS students: Exposure, Encounter, Engagement, and Extension. As instruction responsibilities and opportunities continue to expand in academic librarianship, teaching about SoTL using the four stages may prepare LIS students to quickly adjust to their new roles and engage with other teaching faculty. This article fills a gap in the literature on SoTL in LIS instruction curricula.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.031
Open science0.0100.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it